SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,677
|
Post by gerry on Mar 19, 2018 1:24:14 GMT -5
Youth baseball is rumored to have more players than ever. That isn't true. Parents are shying away from having their kids getting their brains bashed in on football and are turning to baseball these days. I've never stopped to watch a pee-wee football game or a pick-up basketball game. I've stopped scores of times to watch softball games (mens and womens) Little League, Legion games, even town games (yes they still play town baseball on the Delmarva peninsula). What I try not to watch is televised games. Oh, I do now and again, but what a TV production crew gravitates to and that which my own sensibilities as a baseball voyeur choose to observe are very nearly incompatible. If it were not for the CF camera view I would probably forego televised games altogether. FWIW listening and talking to fans in the stands at these youth oriented (and sometimes Senior oriented) diamond venues beats the heck out of listening to drunks talk about PEDs, L/R splits or (mis)management decisions. Never confuse the business of baseball with the game. You left out college and high school baseball (the latter of which is a blast), pony league, church leagues. It may not be like it was when I was a kid, unstructured and sheer fun (2 generations of helicopter parents share the blame for that) it is still a wonder how some 5 and 7 and 10 year olds perform, and carry themselves like natural athletes, and laugh themselves around the bases. I encourage everyone to go out and explore for the joy of it. You will still have time to watch the Sox (on mute) threepeat the Division.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 19, 2018 9:01:38 GMT -5
Minor league players are not part of the union, so that won't have anything to do with a work stoppage just like the lawsuits haven't. They're forced to file the lawsuits specifically because they can't collectively bargain. But yes, this is all absolute bullshit. We'll see if it goes anywhere - as the article notes, there was a specific bill introduced in 2016 that nothing happened with - but this boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 19, 2018 12:16:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 17, 2018 11:48:21 GMT -5
There's definitely a work stoppage coming when the next CBA expires. These two sides aren't agreeing on much these days anymore.
|
|
Smittyw
Veteran
Posts: 1,293
Member is Online
|
Post by Smittyw on Jul 17, 2018 13:06:43 GMT -5
lol.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 17, 2018 13:11:11 GMT -5
What the players saw was GMs smartening up. This is definitely going to be an ugly strike.
I don't think you can force GMs to sign players to contracts that they know are doomed to fail.
I think you can do some things if you're the union.
Perhaps add a 26th man to the roster, bring the DH to both leagues, install a minimum salary floor, move up the luxury tax limit, but the days of stupid contracts should be considerably lessened.
The days of the emotional old fashioned decision maker has been replaced by the brightest analytical mathematical minds. Front offices, for the most part, have smartened up.
I don't see the Players' Association accepting this so I anticipate we'll be in for a long strike, somewhere around 2022.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 17, 2018 13:31:33 GMT -5
Tony Clark is really bad at his job, but he isn't wrong saying this. Manny Ramirez got more guaranteed money and dollars than JD Martinez 17 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 17, 2018 14:40:18 GMT -5
Tony Clark is really bad at his job, but he isn't wrong saying this. Manny Ramirez got more guaranteed money and dollars than JD Martinez 17 years ago. That's because there are harsh penalties for going over a dollar threshhold now, which is what Clark advised the players to agree to. Plus that was when Manny was 28 and the era made it so there was no fear of an early decline like there is now.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 17, 2018 14:41:16 GMT -5
What Tony Clark didn't see last offseason was that the CBA that he signed would lead to far smaller and shorter free agent contracts.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 17, 2018 15:04:20 GMT -5
Yeah, if there has been an attack on player's FA rights, it's been happening during the CBA negotiations. The offseason was just front offices playing the hand they've already been dealt.
I feel like part of this is that the players are sort of the last ones to get the memo on modern analytics. I think they just assumed that recording a bunch of RBIs in the past would guarantee big free agent contracts in the future. The player's union has done nothing to increase the earning power of the players that teams actually value, nor have they pushed to improve the livelihoods of their most exploited members. They're upset that Logan Morrison got lowballed, but do they care that Juan Soto is going to make the minimum for three years? For that matter, the dudes who aren't Juan Soto. Guys who spend a decade toiling in the minors -- the primes of their lives -- for a year or two where they get to be an up-and-down bench guy, and never get into real money.
My question for Tony Clark is, what do you actually want? For your players, for your sport. Because right now it seems like they don't have an answer to that question, other than wishing that things would be the way they were twenty years ago.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,795
|
Post by mobaz on Jul 17, 2018 15:22:45 GMT -5
I don't know how you get from today to a system where great players are paid greatly for great performance while they are still great. Mookie winning arbitration might carve a little precedent for some players, but even if he gets 10-15-20 from 2018 through 2020, he'll still get $15M/year for potentially the best 3 years of his career and then (say) $35M/year that will roll well into a potential decline. A more "economically efficient" situation would be arbitration starting a year earlier (or broader Super 2 type rules) and free agency after 5 years, but what would the owners get in exchange that they don't already have (given they are pretty close to a hard cap already)?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 17, 2018 17:11:54 GMT -5
There is no easy fix for Baseball. The revenue issues between the so called big market and small market teams being the biggest issue. For years the big market teams propped up the system, yet the new luxury tax system is now changing that. Every fix will hurt the lower revenue teams and they have the numbers. So they will fight it. It's why the Comish is trying to make the game more enjoyable to the average fan. He understands that if he can't in some way level the playing field, things are going to get ugly for Baseball. So yea this up coming labor war is going to be bad.
The whole new system was to increase taxes, passing more money to the lower revenue teams while capping the amount the top teams spent. The lower teams basically just stopped spending this offseason, while most of the top teams needed to reign in spending because of the new taxes. Most of the rule changes are always to help the lower revenue teams. They get the advantage they wanted and stop spending. So to hell with the lower revenue teams. Either get your crap together or maybe we need a few less teams. Baseball is the only major sport with these issues. You can't set a minimum floor, which seems like the easy fix. Those teams can't afford a floor high enough to give the players a big enough share of the revenue. Changing the arbitration system hurts them even more. Even massive revenue sharing along with new stadiums can't allow some teams to have payrolls well over a 100 million. We've even been giving the lower revenue teams extra talent by way of extra draft picks and more international money. It just doesn't work.
Just remember this when a bunch of you hammer on Baseball wanting to change the game. They look at the problem and understand that the only fix is improving the lower revenue teams. The fixes to this point in the CBA are breaking the system. Simply trying to equal the playing field on spending doesn't work. Its making things worse frankly. So trying to get more young people to enjoy baseball seems like a logical next step. Understand that everyone reading this isn't an average fan, but a die hard. The rule changes aren't designed for you. I'm not even saying I agree with them all, just I agree something needs to change. That change has to be rather radical. Growing up Baseball was my number one sport, now I enjoy watching football and basketball more. Mainly because of how they changed the games. Increasing revenue so any team can compete. Just look at the Thunder as an example and that tax bill.
So I 100% agree the player union has been a sleep at the wheel for years. At the same time I don't think Baseballs leaders have done a good job either. It's just not an easy thing to fix. A couple of great players can't fix a team like in Basketball and Football. The whole process of drafting and developing players is so hard and takes so long. So I wish them luck because the fix isn't easy. Not allowing owners like Mark Cuban is crazy and part of the problem! I just had to add that, while he can be over the top, he's a great owner.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 17, 2018 17:30:38 GMT -5
So I 100% agree the player union has been a sleep at the wheel for years. At the same time I don't think Baseballs leaders have done a good job either. It's just not an easy thing to fix. A couple of great players can't fix a team like in Basketball and Football. The whole process of drafting and developing players is so hard and takes so long. So I wish them luck because the fix isn't easy. Not allowing owners like Mark Cuban is crazy and part of the problem! I just had to add that, while he can be over the top, he's a great owner. They did a great job if their goal was to create a welfare system for the Jeffrey Lorias of the world, which it 100% was.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 18, 2018 11:32:13 GMT -5
There is no easy fix for Baseball. The revenue issues between the so called big market and small market teams being the biggest issue. For years the big market teams propped up the system, yet the new luxury tax system is now changing that. Every fix will hurt the lower revenue teams and they have the numbers. So they will fight it. It's why the Comish is trying to make the game more enjoyable to the average fan. He understands that if he can't in some way level the playing field, things are going to get ugly for Baseball. So yea this up coming labor war is going to be bad. The whole new system was to increase taxes, passing more money to the lower revenue teams while capping the amount the top teams spent. The lower teams basically just stopped spending this offseason, while most of the top teams needed to reign in spending because of the new taxes. Most of the rule changes are always to help the lower revenue teams. They get the advantage they wanted and stop spending. So to hell with the lower revenue teams. Either get your crap together or maybe we need a few less teams. Baseball is the only major sport with these issues. You can't set a minimum floor, which seems like the easy fix. Those teams can't afford a floor high enough to give the players a big enough share of the revenue. Changing the arbitration system hurts them even more. Even massive revenue sharing along with new stadiums can't allow some teams to have payrolls well over a 100 million. We've even been giving the lower revenue teams extra talent by way of extra draft picks and more international money. It just doesn't work. Just remember this when a bunch of you hammer on Baseball wanting to change the game. They look at the problem and understand that the only fix is improving the lower revenue teams. The fixes to this point in the CBA are breaking the system. Simply trying to equal the playing field on spending doesn't work. Its making things worse frankly. So trying to get more young people to enjoy baseball seems like a logical next step. Understand that everyone reading this isn't an average fan, but a die hard. The rule changes aren't designed for you. I'm not even saying I agree with them all, just I agree something needs to change. That change has to be rather radical. Growing up Baseball was my number one sport, now I enjoy watching football and basketball more. Mainly because of how they changed the games. Increasing revenue so any team can compete. Just look at the Thunder as an example and that tax bill. So I 100% agree the player union has been a sleep at the wheel for years. At the same time I don't think Baseballs leaders have done a good job either. It's just not an easy thing to fix. A couple of great players can't fix a team like in Basketball and Football. The whole process of drafting and developing players is so hard and takes so long. So I wish them luck because the fix isn't easy. Not allowing owners like Mark Cuban is crazy and part of the problem! I just had to add that, while he can be over the top, he's a great owner. I don't think this is just a baseball issue. It's an issue of media itself and what the younger generation is attracted to. Cable tv is going to end up dying eventually no matter how much they try to prevent it from happening. That cable money is going to dry up. I just don't see how baseball is going to tap into the instagram/twitch/youtube audience. My girlfriend works in retail. There are probably 50 younger people there (under 25) and not a single one of them likes baseball. That's not exactly a scientific study, but I think it shows the future problem. And I know damn well that every single attempt that baseball makes to bring that audience in is going to annoy the hell out of me.
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Jul 19, 2018 10:33:58 GMT -5
On a different note I wonder if their is any problems in clubhouses over peers getting paid big deals that can break up a team a little.
For example the Sox are going to have a lot of guys coming up on their first big contracts. When Mookie gets his huge contract that has a trickle down affect on who stays and who goes and just how much the Sox can pay other players. Most likely not but jealousy and pride are real emotions while being happy for a teammate is also real.
I know they are all pros but I think about the Celtics and Marcus Smart. His contract situation is being affected by the moves the C's need to make in the future. What does he think about his importance to the team and how he will be paid compared to his teammates? Yes there are a lot of moving parts to consider but I am talking about how players feel even if they don't voice it in the locker room. What do they say to their wives or parents, how do they really feel and does that translate into a locker room? We are talking about the haves and the have nots. Isiah Thomas thought he was going to back up the brinks truck and he just signed for the minimum, he is going to be out many many millions for his career. He is not a happy camper.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jul 24, 2018 2:05:46 GMT -5
I'm stressing about the fact that the Red Sox will not be able to afford to keep all their home-grown talent, over the long-haul. I argue that the salary cap is supposed to deter teams/owners from going out and outbidding other teams for the best players, rather than developing their own. I don't feel like teams should be penalized, and therefore not able to afford to keep their own talent long-term. Perhaps this has all been discussed in length before; if so, I apologize for bringing it up again.
Why are some teams penalized for trying to keep their own home-grown talent? I have old-fashioned viewpoints that favor teams keeping their home-grown talent, instead of having to let players go because of the penalty of going over the cap. In the last thirty years or so, players are less, and less likely to stay with the teams that developed them, throughout their career, unlike in the past when it was much more commonplace. It was better before free-agency started, imo. when teams like the Yankees and Dodgers built dynasties, mainly through their own farm systems. Fans of each team really like it when their team's farm system develops good, all-star quality players, and doesn't have to go obtain them from some other team through free-agency, or a trade. It's a great feeling knowing how many good-quality positional players that are playing for the Sox right now, that were also developed by the Red Sox. Yet there is this growing knot in my stomach that the team can't afford to keep all their good, home-grown talent.
Actually it's not like the Red Sox can't afford to keep all the good players they've developed, it's more to do with the fact that it's prohibitively expensive to keep all the talent due to the progressive fines of going over the salary cap, and the fact that every player comes up for contract extensions at different times depending on how long they've been in the league. I argue that a team should be allowed to exceed the salary cap without penalty to extend their own developed talent. Most big market teams can probably afford to keep everyone if they chose to, along with some small market teams. However it's the exorbitant penalty that teams pay to keep their players once the salary cap is exceeded, that ends up breaking teams up of their own developed talent, which I think has a big negative effect on the overall image of professional sports. It's now commonly accepted that it's all just a business nowadays, and so one has to become callous to seeing homegrown talent end up playing for the enemy team, just because they became too expensive to keep. I argue that MLB and the Player's Union should come up with a new agreement that encourages teams to keep their own developed players, rather than depending on free-agency signings, and trades. The fact that the Sox are realistically not going to be able to keep all the talent they've developed, due to penalties for going over the cap, just plain sucks.
Why can't there be a new agreement that allows for teams to pay their own developed players separately from the cap? The reason for the salary cap was to keep big-market teams from just buying all the best players, and keeping all-star rosters that would logically be continuously better than the small-market teams who can't afford to sign several big-name free agents. I'm all in favor of the salary cap for this reason. However when teams can't keep all their own home-grown talent just because of the excessive penalties of going over the cap, this is a disservice to MLB, and to the fans, who love watching their team develop a player into a successful major league player, and maybe even an all-star, or a HOF player.
If teams were allowed to keep/re-sign their own developed players to long-term contracts, and not be penalized for exceeding the cap, I argue that would be a good thing for MLB's image. Home-grown talent should not not be susceptible to the penalties for going over the cap. It's extremely difficult to find and develop talented players, especially for teams that strive to be competitive, and not usually in last-place. There should technically be two team salaries for each franchise, and only players that are obtained through free-agency or trades should be susceptible to the salary cap penalties. I believe this can be done fairly, without penalizing small-market, or big-market teams, or the player's union. For example, if a team has a lot of good, home-grown talent that they'd like to keep (like the current Red Sox team), then they should be able to do so without worrying about excessive penalties, even if doing so takes a team past the salary cap. Once the team pays their own players without penalties, any other players obtained by free-agency, or trades, are added on to the total payroll, and are susceptible to the penalties for exceeding the cap, as usual.
Obviously there would have to be a whole lot more thought put into an agreement like this, but I argue that there really isn't anything that I can think of yet that would make this impossible to implement.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 24, 2018 3:25:52 GMT -5
You are arguing that the luxury tax isn't good because it's doing exactly what they wanted it to do. Small market teams don't want large market teams like the Red Sox having super teams. If they do they pay a huge amount in taxes that goes to the lower revenue teams.
Nevermind I don't really agree they can't keep the players they developed. Its you can't keep them all and pay Kimbrel, Sale, Martinez, Price and guys like Pomeranz. Nevermind be paying Ramirez and Sandoval to not even play. Most of the salary on this team isn't players we developed. Take out all the players we traded for or signed as free agents and we can easily afford the players we developed.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 24, 2018 8:37:33 GMT -5
Providing a luxury tax carveout for home-grown players just means that the big market teams can extend their own players and sign expensive free agents. It wouldn’t help small market teams at all, who never sniff the tax anyways. As mentioned above, the real problem isn’t that the Red Sox can’t re-sign Mookie and the rest of the young core, it’s that they can’t do that while also re-signing the guys they traded for.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jul 24, 2018 9:09:47 GMT -5
I feel like teams shouldn't have to face the penalty for trying to extend their own players. Most of the pitching staff of the Sox I believe is made up of players obtained through trades or free agency, so I feel like they wouldn't be able to avoid the penalty for going over the cap limit. I like the fact that teams are penalized for trying to take the easy way out and just buy talent, rather than trying to develop it on their own. This helps keep things balanced around the league between big-market teams, and small-market teams (even though I'm sure it can be argued that buying a roster full of all-stars doesn't necessarily equal winning). My point, however, is if the Sox wanted to sign their young core to contract extensions, those extensions shouldn't be subjected to the penalties just because the team is already over the cap. The contracts get added in to the team's total payroll as normal, however the penalties for going over the payroll should only apply to players obtained through trades, and especially free-agency. It is time consuming, and expensive to develop your own talent. Yeah, if the player is immediately a big success when he reaches the MLB club, then he is inexpensive til he reaches arbitration eligibility, however that isn't very common. It's an inexact science to consistently develop quality players; the Sox seem to be good at developing position players lately, but not pitchers. I think it's pretty cool to have teams that are built into strong contenders, because they are successful at frequently developing their own players. I think it's wrong that a team should spend years developing each player, and the team's fans develop a special affinity for these home-grown players, only to have to trade, or let that player leave when it comes time to sign that player long-term after they have become good players, simply because the penalties for going over the cap makes that player more expensive to keep than they should be.
I readily admit that I'm old-fashioned when it comes to sports, and I miss the days when teams built dynasties with mainly home-grown talent, and didn't have to worry about salary cap penalties to keep their own developed players long-term. I think it builds a positive, special, intriguing history for MLB by allowing teams to build dynasties with mainly players from their own farm systems, and especially to see those players have a stronger chance at staying with one team through their whole career. Rather than nowadays, where it seems that players are more like mercenaries, and hop from team to team, simply chasing money. I really hate seeing a favorite player go and play for the enemy, like when a favorite Red Sox player winds up playing for the Yankees, but nowadays it's no big deal because it's just a business. BLAH!
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 24, 2018 9:13:29 GMT -5
The penalty isn't for trying to extend their own players, though. The penalty is for doing that while also having over $100 million in contracts of players that aren't homegrown. If the Red Sox could re-sign Mookie Betts or the Yankees Luis Severino without a cap hit, it would give them a huge advantage when signing other teams' free agents. It would be more unfair than having just a totally uncapped system.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jul 24, 2018 9:30:10 GMT -5
I really could care less about whether the big market teams like the Yankees potentially be able to build a dynasty mainly with their own developed talent. Matter of fact, I say good for them! That should be encouraged, not penalized. That's what farm systems and player development is supposed to do. I want to see small market teams do the same thing. I don't want to see teams just go out and buy all the best talent just cause they can afford to, or trade for players that other teams can't afford. That isn't fair and equitable. But forcing a big market team like the Red Sox, or any market team have to pay penalties to extend the contracts of their own players they've patiently developed over several years, sucks. Forcing a team to essentially break up a good core of homegrown players because it's not fair to other teams that they successfully developed a great team of their own players. And if a big market team can afford to keep them all, but are penalized in doing so, just seems like an excessive, forced attempt at leveling out the playing field, which can be boring.
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Jul 24, 2018 9:32:40 GMT -5
I do think they should tweak the rules. I understand the merits of trying to create more parity in baseball but a team that can dominate is also good for the game (in all sports) reigns come to an end. I'm sure good points can be made for both sides of the argument, but I like the ideal of teams having more space to sign their own guys.
Wouldn't the Sox be more exciting to watch if Mookie Betts played here for life? and Aaron Judge played in New York for his entire career. Obviously big market teams are always going to have the capacity to sign whoever they want but the playing field they have created has left teams in a position to make a choice. I think baseball would be more exciting, and it would be a huge draw for fans to fall in love with a unit of Betts/Bogaerts/Benintendi and be able to extend their time together on the team.
Just my 2 cents...which is probably worth about 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by sparkygian on Jul 24, 2018 9:33:08 GMT -5
It wouldn't be an uncapped system, there would still be a cap. I'm just arguing that the emphasis on the enforcing of penalties should be on signing free-agents, and trades.
Its just an opinion......
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 24, 2018 9:39:33 GMT -5
You're missing the point entirely.
Your idea wouldn't make it easier for the Yankees and Red Sox to build a dynatsty with their own developed talent. They already have the opportunity to choose that, as neither team has anything close to $230 million in annual salary for homegrown guys. It would instead make it easier to supplement their dynasty of their own developed talents by being able to sign elite free agents of other teams, because they wouldn't be facing a cap hit from their developed talent.
Your argument should be for an uncapped market that allows all teams equal footing, not one that gives massive accounting advantages to rich teams with some carveout schemes. The Red Sox are paying David Price, JD Martinez, Pablo Sandoval, Hanley Ramirez, and Craig Kimbrel about $110 million this season. It's not the rising cost of homegrown talent that makes it hard to keep that homegrown talent together. It's the fact they chose to supplement their young talent with expensive veterans. That's fine they chose to do that - they're on pace for 114 wins or something, so it's tough to argue with that. But it makes absolutely zero sense that they should have all the financial advantages to sign free agents and also get this supplemental advantage to sign their own. What your system does isn't about giving an opportunity for a team to resign its own players; it's instead an opportunity for a team to sign David Price to a $200 million deal without it affecting its ability to resign its own players.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 24, 2018 10:58:04 GMT -5
You are arguing that the luxury tax isn't good because it's doing exactly what they wanted it to do. Small market teams don't want large market teams like the Red Sox having super teams. If they do they pay a huge amount in taxes that goes to the lower revenue teams. Nevermind I don't really agree they can't keep the players they developed. Its you can't keep them all and pay Kimbrel, Sale, Martinez, Price and guys like Pomeranz. Nevermind be paying Ramirez and Sandoval to not even play. Most of the salary on this team isn't players we developed. Take out all the players we traded for or signed as free agents and we can easily afford the players we developed. Their plan is working great so far! *whispers* they actually just want the revenue sharing money regardless of any competitive balance concerns.
|
|
|